OARB 2019

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of its property assessment for the 2019 taxation year, arguing it did not receive the 2016 Property Assessment Notice due to an incorrect mailing address.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the moving party was entitled to and did not receive the notice, it failed to file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as it had experienced a significant tax increase starting in 2017.

The motion to accept the late appeal was denied.

The moving party, a registered charity, sought an extension of time to file a Request for Reconsideration or a late appeal regarding the commercial classification and assessment of its property for the 2019 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for a Request for Reconsideration because the property was in the commercial tax class, making such a request optional rather than a prerequisite to an appeal.

Treating the application as a motion for a late appeal, the Board denied the motion because the moving party failed to file within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, having received a municipal tax bill containing the assessment information more than a year prior.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of a vacant commercial waterfront property used as a parking lot with attached docks and slips.

The main issue was whether docks owned by a tenant and affixed to the property were assessable as part of the land under section 1 of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the docks were affixed to the property with an intention of permanence and were therefore assessable as land, regardless of the tenant's ownership.

The Board accepted MPAC's cost approach valuation and reduced the assessment from $44,000 to $27,000.

The applicants applied to have their 2018 property taxes reduced, cancelled, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants were unable to pay their property taxes in full due to both sickness and extreme poverty, as their monthly expenses exceeded their income.

The Board ordered the 2018 property taxes to be reduced by $636, reflecting the average monthly financial shortfall.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of his waterfront property, which was assessed at $473,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $340,000, while MPAC recommended $408,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $347,000.

The Board further applied an equitable reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final assessment to $329,000.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of their residential property.

The Requester argued that the Hearing Member breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit late-filed evidence and erred in determining the property's current value.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the Requester failed to establish exceptional circumstances for the late filing of evidence and that there was ample evidence to support the Hearing Member's valuation.

The moving parties sought to file late appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years regarding the assessment of their property.

The property's building had been demolished in 2017, but the municipality failed to notify MPAC, resulting in assessments that did not reflect the demolition.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration for 2018, as the request must be made in the taxation year.

However, the Board found extenuating circumstances for 2019 due to the municipality's failure to notify MPAC, and extended the time to file a Request for Reconsideration for the 2019 taxation year.

The appellant, a not-for-profit organization operating a student residence, appealed the reclassification of its property from the residential to the multi-residential property tax class.

The appellant argued the property should remain in the residential class because the units were not self-contained and the property was used on a seasonal basis.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not used on a seasonal basis as it was open year-round.

Applying a prior Board decision, the Board determined that the physical layout of the suites, which included shared kitchens and bathrooms, met the definition of self-contained units.

The Board also held that equity does not apply to property classification.

The appeal was dismissed and the multi-residential classification was upheld.

Canadian National Railway brought a motion to extend the time for bringing appeals under section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, arguing that three of its properties were incorrectly assessed as separate parcels rather than a single property, constituting a palpable error.

The Assessment Review Board found no palpable error for the years prior to 2013, as the properties did not abut and could be conveyed separately.

For the years after 2013, when the properties did abut, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to grant relief, finding that the moving party's failure to appeal in the normal course was due to simple inadvertence, which does not justify the extraordinary remedy of correcting a palpable error.

The moving party, a corporate property owner, brought a motion to file a late assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party's sole director filed a statutory declaration stating she did not receive the notice of assessment and only became aware of the assessment upon receiving a tax bill.

The Board found that the moving party met the three-part test under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as the director was entitled to receive notice, did not receive it, and filed a Request for Reconsideration (treated as an appeal) within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion to extend the time to file the appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed an overdue tax bill of $225,535.43 resulting from the City's late processing of phase-in assessment values for the 2009 to 2017 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the City failed to comply with implied statutory time limits under the Assessment Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and that the late processing constituted an error.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding no expressed or implied legislative time frames for MPAC to provide the phase-in values or for the City to process them, and concluded there was no error or prejudice to the appellant.

The applicants applied to the City of Hamilton under section 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2018 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicants' financial evidence, which showed an annual family net income of approximately $128,863 and monthly expenses significantly lower than their monthly income.

The Board found that the applicants had adequate income to meet their financial commitments and failed to demonstrate an inability to pay their property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant applied for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2018 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the Applicant's financial evidence, which showed a net worth of $42,745, monthly income exceeding expenses, and significant discretionary spending, including an unused truck and a mobile home trailer.

The Board found that the Applicant had not exhausted all available resources and had the financial ability to pay her property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 40-acre vacant residential property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $25,500, while the appellant argued for a value between $10,340 and $10,810.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $26,000 based on comparable sales.

Applying an equitable reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the final assessed value to $24,000.

The appellants appealed the 2018 and 2019 property tax assessment of their 9.85-acre vacant, unbuildable lot, which was assessed at $19,500.

The appellants argued the property was virtually inaccessible and unusable, proposing a value between $3,450 and $10,000 based on the assessed values of other properties.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the respondent's direct sales comparison approach, which demonstrated that similar vacant, unbuildable lots in the district sold for comparable or higher per-acre amounts.

The Board found the assessment was justified and confirmed the current value at $19,500.

The moving party purchased a vacant lot in July 2019 and sought to file a late appeal for the 2019 taxation year assessment, arguing the purchase price was significantly less than the assessed value.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the moving party was not entitled to receive a notice of assessment because he was not the owner when the roll was returned.

Furthermore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the time to file a Request for Reconsideration under the Assessment Act, as the moving party was not entitled to file one for the 2019 taxation year.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that assessed her property at $2,511,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

She alleged procedural unfairness by MPAC and the Board, and argued the Board made significant errors of fact and law by preferring MPAC's comparable properties, quality class ratings, and time adjustment factors over her own evidence.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, and concluding that the original adjudicator's factual findings and weighing of evidence were within their discretion and did not constitute significant errors.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the property assessment at $1,227,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The requester argued the Board made errors of fact and law in determining current value using comparable properties, identifying a land value sale, and conducting its equity analysis.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the presiding members did not make any significant errors of law or fact that would have likely led to a different decision, as required by Rule 121(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of their property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

They argued the Board erred by failing to apply a $10,000 reduction for abutting commercial properties and a 35% reduction for shoreline and floodplain characteristics.

The Associate Chair found no error regarding the $10,000 reduction, as the original panel reasonably preferred the respondent's evidence.

However, the Associate Chair found a lack of clarity regarding whether the 35% reduction was actually applied to the final valuation, constituting an error that warranted a rehearing on the valuation issue.

The City of Toronto requested a review of a Board decision granting property tax relief to the respondent due to extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The City argued the Board erred by not including $800 in monthly family support as income and by finding the respondent was in extreme poverty despite having equity in her home.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no significant error of fact or law.

The funds were intended for the respondent's children and transferred to a trust, and the respondent's equity was reasonably considered inaccessible due to an ongoing family law dispute.